The plans for the Grading System

General discussions about ratings.
Post Reply
User avatar
Paolo Casaschi
Posts: 1186
Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2009 6:46 am

Re: The plans for the Grading System

Post by Paolo Casaschi » Fri Feb 12, 2016 3:03 pm

Roger de Coverly wrote:
Paolo Casaschi wrote: Also keep in mind, the current system for FIDE rating requires results to be uploaded manually... What we are discussing here is how to make that submission automated but the security risks are the same. And the same risk you have with a grader that decides to send fake results in paper form.
My understanding of the FIDE process is that every rating submission has to go through a named official or employee of the national Federation ("International Ratings Officer").

As it currently stands for English domestic events, I would not be allowed to play a private match against someone and then submit it personally for ECF grading. It would have to go through the local grader which gets a third party involved. That restriction needs to be maintained, hence the concept of routing all results, virtually if necessary, through the local grader.
Sure, the integrity of the system requires some checks on the source of the data.
But this is true of any system. Even in the one currently part of the ECF tender, the ECF will need to make sure that only trusted people can use the event management system and submit data.
I do not see why the concern of fraud would apply only for my proposed approach.

Stewart Reuben
Posts: 4539
Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2007 11:04 pm
Location: writer

Re: The plans for the Grading System

Post by Stewart Reuben » Fri Feb 12, 2016 3:21 pm

Nick >I have always taken U20, etc, to mean 20 and under.<
In technical terms, that is what is called wrong.
A tournament starts 3 January 2016. It is for players U20. Somebody who became 20 on 31st December 2015 is clearly 20 and under and equally clearly is not eligible. Somebody who becomes 20 on 2 January 2016 is eligible, yet not U20. Because the rules say so.
Everybody has the right to believe 3 impossible things before beakfast, except possibly the Members of the Qualification Commission.

That is quite like your believing a tournament is open when it is restricted to players rated 2300 or higher.

User avatar
Paolo Casaschi
Posts: 1186
Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2009 6:46 am

Re: The plans for the Grading System

Post by Paolo Casaschi » Fri Feb 12, 2016 3:24 pm

Brian Towers wrote:One interesting contradiction in the document which demonstrates a lack of knowledge about open source copyrights (or copylefts if you want to be suitably apolitical ;-)) is this
ECF Invitation to Tender wrote:Ownership
The ECF should own the server on which the application is hosted, and also the copyright for the code used to create the system.

Open Source Software
The software when written should not be using proprietary software where possible – if it can be written using open source software, this will be desirable.
Anybody broadly familiar with open source copyright will know that this usually specifies that products generated using open source inherit the copyright conditions that the resulting software also be open source.
This not true, in fact quite a common misconception about the open source approach.

Let's say you need an XML library to develope the software required by the ECF. You can use an open source XML library and still release the ECF software as not open source; the only constraint is generally that you need to acknowledge the use of the open source library, you need to provide that open source software if requested by any of your users and, if you changed in any way the open source library, you need to make those changes available to the open source library project.

Still, you can make closed source, private commercial software using open source libraries, tools and artworks.

For example, if you have broadband at home, the home hub routers that come wig the service typically use a lot of open source software (from the Linux operating system to the networking and security applications) but you do not have access to the proprietary pieces of the software (typically the user interface and the glue that combines all the pieces together).

MartinCarpenter
Posts: 3041
Joined: Tue May 24, 2011 10:58 am

Re: The plans for the Grading System

Post by MartinCarpenter » Fri Feb 12, 2016 3:36 pm

Depends somewhat what breed of open source license you're using :) Many of them are fairly permissive in terms of doing stuff like the above, but pure GPL is awfully strict.

Mind you I can't see why the ECF would complain about the system itself going open source anyway. Hardly much, if anything, to lose in terms of commercial activity so may as well GPL the lot. If someone improves it then good!

The important thing is that they've got the source code, so they have half a chance to maintain it over time. All these things are single person hobby efforts, so you have to be careful.

Michael Flatt
Posts: 1235
Joined: Tue Jul 02, 2013 7:36 am
Location: Hertfordshire

Re: The plans for the Grading System

Post by Michael Flatt » Fri Feb 12, 2016 3:56 pm

The Chess Community seems to have more than its fair share of computer literate folk and computing professionals, unlike members of the ECF management.

So, why not convene a working party of those having the time, expertise and interest to look into the matter and set up a suitable system to interface with the LMS that Leagues and Counties currently use?

The ideas expressed by Paolo Casaschi seem to have great merit and are worth exploring.

MartinCarpenter
Posts: 3041
Joined: Tue May 24, 2011 10:58 am

Re: The plans for the Grading System

Post by MartinCarpenter » Fri Feb 12, 2016 4:01 pm

You'd rather hope (expect?) they're going to do both - a system to let people interface in from other systems yes, but also their own system.

The latter Partially maybe for people who don't do anything currently and also so we can all spy on all of the leagues round the country :) They'll need something basically equivalent to need it to run the monthly grading anyway.

Michael Flatt
Posts: 1235
Joined: Tue Jul 02, 2013 7:36 am
Location: Hertfordshire

Re: The plans for the Grading System

Post by Michael Flatt » Fri Feb 12, 2016 4:09 pm

I would suspect that Leagues would want to retain absolute control over their own affairs. I don't think any of them would want ECF officials to have the facility to mess with their fixtures or rules.

There is absolutely no need for the ECF to write another system to duplicate what currently exists.

The boundary between Leagues and the ECF needs to be maintained.

MartinCarpenter
Posts: 3041
Joined: Tue May 24, 2011 10:58 am

Re: The plans for the Grading System

Post by MartinCarpenter » Fri Feb 12, 2016 4:36 pm

Can we keep this a bit grounded? The boundary between leagues and the ECF is grading, and stays that way. Easy stuff :)

The plan is basically simply what a modern grading website should do. Goodness, we've been managing to do it in Yorkshire for several years now - for every graded game - and we're hardly known as a hotbed of conformity! Absolutely nil controversy.

The difficulties with this are going to be practical - doing it countrywide could turn hard and more importantly getting a system which is going to still work in 5/10/15 years is a distinct worry. Or that can survive sundry potential disaster scenarios.

Michael Flatt
Posts: 1235
Joined: Tue Jul 02, 2013 7:36 am
Location: Hertfordshire

Re: The plans for the Grading System

Post by Michael Flatt » Fri Feb 12, 2016 4:49 pm

If the intention is specifically to improve the ECF methods and procedures for grading then the subject of LMS is irrelevant and the tendering process initiated by the ECF is a complete waste of everyone's time.

With regard to improving the way the ECF does grading it would seem natural to me to set up a working party comprising people with relevant knowledge and experience.

Some work is required to determine the failings or weaknesses of the current system and identify what a better system might look like.

MartinCarpenter
Posts: 3041
Joined: Tue May 24, 2011 10:58 am

Re: The plans for the Grading System

Post by MartinCarpenter » Fri Feb 12, 2016 5:07 pm

The LMS arises because once you're gathering the information for a monthly grading system you're almost doing one already :)

You're getting the same data as a LMS would in terms of match results. A few bits like fancy registered players/advanced fixtures (although no reason the ECF system can't do that), weird (handicap?) K/O cup rules etc, but nothing enormous.

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 21291
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: The plans for the Grading System

Post by Roger de Coverly » Fri Feb 12, 2016 5:08 pm

Michael Flatt wrote:If the intention is specifically to improve the ECF methods and procedures for grading then the subject of LMS is irrelevant and the tendering process initiated by the ECF is a complete waste of everyone's time.
The intention appears to be to bring club tournaments and leagues in line with Congresses, so that results are reported to the ECF not later than a month after the games were played. The perception, rightly or wrongly, is that the methods used by local graders to get data from current league or club management systems into the ECF's grading database are too time consuming to apply on a monthly basis. I'm using the term "league or club management system" in its broadest possible sense to include those still using result cards or cross tables on the back of envelopes.

Once that is in place, grading or rating systems that require up to date information to be reliable can be considered.

Michael Flatt
Posts: 1235
Joined: Tue Jul 02, 2013 7:36 am
Location: Hertfordshire

Re: The plans for the Grading System

Post by Michael Flatt » Fri Feb 12, 2016 5:30 pm

I can understand that local graders might be reluctant to commit to uploading results every month. The checking of results, eligibility of players, completion of adjourned games, submitting games for adjudication and a host of other things occupy their time.

Removing the local grader from the chain removes one of the essential stages of checking results. I think that is was mentioned earlier that his role cannot be omitted and for the system rely purely on the submission of results by team captains. Not all team captains register their matches, many prefer to leave it to the opposing captain.

Thus, the League will want to retain these responsibilities.

What seems to be lacking is any formal planning by the ECF. What has been proposed is the solution but there has been no discussion about objectives, methods and procedures. It appears that only members of this forum have put thought into these issues.

The ECF has started a tendering process but without any meaningful plan nor any funding agreed with Council!

Malcolm Peacock
Posts: 67
Joined: Sat Jun 30, 2007 5:47 pm

Re: The plans for the Grading System

Post by Malcolm Peacock » Fri Feb 12, 2016 5:59 pm

Paolo Casaschi wrote:
Roger de Coverly wrote:It's now up on the main ECF site.

http://www.englishchess.org.uk/league-m ... evelopment
I have to admit I did not read the full tender document, but I thought of a slightly different approach to the problem.

The current proposal has an ECF owned event management system linked to the grading database; this has the drawback of upseting users of different event management systems and also frustrating developers of those other tools.

An alternative approach could be for the ECF to upgrade the grading website with public APIs to allow for automatic submission of results from compliant/certified applications. Then the ECF would allow the developers of all existing event management systems to upgrade their tools to use those API. Chances are the developers would include this functionality at no cost for the ECF, similarly to how they developed those systems in the first place. Costs for the ECF would be limited to defining and implementing those open access API, much lower than providing a full system with source code ownership. Chances are some developers of the existing systems will include the functionality, some will not; in any event end users will drive these developments and reward the tools that add the functionality of deemed useful. Users of tools that do not comply will have to submit results manually.

I'd be interested to hear from the people developing/maintaining these event management systems: would they take advantage of public APIs to submit result for grading automatically if those APIs were available?
Yes. As an author of an existing LMS http://sc.popmalc.org.uk/ I was contact informally by the ECF and proposed something similar to them. I would be willing to upgrade my system. If all the existing LMS's were upgraded to feed results to the new API's then all those results could immediately feed into live ratings, without needing to wait a year for a new system to be developed.
Michael Flatt wrote:The Chess Community seems to have more than its fair share of computer literate folk and computing professionals, unlike members of the ECF management.

So, why not convene a working party of those having the time, expertise and interest to look into the matter and set up a suitable system to interface with the LMS that Leagues and Counties currently use?

The ideas expressed by Paolo Casaschi seem to have great merit and are worth exploring.
This sounds like a good idea also.

User avatar
John Upham
Posts: 7162
Joined: Wed Apr 04, 2007 10:29 am
Location: Cove, Hampshire, England.
Contact:

Re: The plans for the Grading System

Post by John Upham » Fri Feb 12, 2016 6:15 pm

I made the suggestion of using the API route some 3-4 years ago. At that time it fell on deaf ears. I am pleased that Malcolm P. has made a similar (in principle) suggestion.
Last edited by John Upham on Fri Feb 12, 2016 7:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.
British Chess News : britishchessnews.com
Twitter: @BritishChess
Facebook: facebook.com/groups/britishchess :D

Michael Flatt
Posts: 1235
Joined: Tue Jul 02, 2013 7:36 am
Location: Hertfordshire

Re: The plans for the Grading System

Post by Michael Flatt » Fri Feb 12, 2016 6:58 pm

So, in principle 2 LMS developers are willing to cooperate.

All that is lacking is a person on the ECF side with the appropriate technical knowledge and authority to move things forward.

Does the ECF have such a person?

Post Reply